Abstract

Background

Preference-based measures of health, such as the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), are required to calculate quality-adjusted life-years for use in cost-effectiveness analysis, but are often not recorded in clinical studies. In these cases, mapping can be used to estimate preference-based measures.

Objectives

To model the relationship between the EQ-5D-3L and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast Cancer (FACT-B) instrument, comparing indirect and direct mapping methods, and the use of FACT-B summary score versus FACT-B subscale scores.

Methods

We used data from three clinical studies for advanced breast cancer providing 11,958 observations with full information on FACT-B and the EQ-5D-3L. We compared direct mapping using adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models (ALDVMMs) with indirect mapping using seemingly unrelated ordered probit models. The EQ-5D-3L was estimated as a function of FACT-B and other patient-related covariates.

Results

The use of FACT-B subscale scores was better than using the total FACT-B score. A good fit to the observed data was observed across the entire range of disease severity in all models. ALDVMMs outperformed the indirect mapping. The breast cancer–specific scale had a strong influence in predicting the pain/discomfort and self-care dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L.

Conclusions

This article adds to the growing literature that demonstrates the performance of the ALDVMM method for mapping. Regardless of which model is used, the subscales of FACT-B should be included as independent variables wherever possible. The breast cancer–specific subscale of FACT-B is important in predicting the EQ-5D-3L. This suggests that generic cancer measures should not be used for utility mapping in patients with breast cancer.